EDITORIAL: Benghazi was MIA in debate

Published: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 at 10:08 AM.

Two things were missing from Monday night’s presidential debate on foreign policy. One was an appreciation of the limited role the United States should have in the world, a modesty made advisable not just by economic concerns but also by George Washington’s warning that America ought to have “as little political connection as possible” with distant nations.

The other was Benghazi.

To hear President Obama and challenger Mitt Romney tell it, the United States must project its power and influence everywhere, all the time. We should make sure that other nations — even those that are hostile to Western values — hold fair elections. We should help them establish free-market economies. We should ensure that they protect women’s rights and abide by the rule of law. If they don’t get in line, we’ll impose sanctions. We might start arming folks who want to overthrow their government.

Said Mr. Romney, speaking of the Middle East: “We have to help these nations create civil societies.”
No, we don’t. What Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama described is not a foreign policy but a foreign INTERVENTIONIST policy.

Again and again, Mr. Romney said “I feel the president was right” with this or that decision. He backed the U.S. pullout from Afghanistan by the end of 2014 (a break from his earlier pronouncements). He expressed strong support for Israel, as did Obama. He said a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable, as did Obama.

The one potentially sharp split between the two was the administration’s handling of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. But it was barely touched on. The president said he’ll go after those responsible, and that was about it.

Mr. Romney’s near-silence on the topic was puzzling. The Benghazi affair is an open wound on the Obama administration and raises serious questions about Mr. Obama’s adeptness at managing security issues. Romney’s failure to press him for answers was, in our view, a missed opportunity.

Benghazi may get more attention as Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney sprint toward Election Day. It’s doubtful that other foreign policy differences will be argued, however, because there aren’t many.

Reader comments posted to this article may be published in our print edition. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published
without permission. Links are encouraged.

Two things were missing from Monday night’s presidential debate on foreign policy. One was an appreciation of the limited role the United States should have in the world, a modesty made advisable not just by economic concerns but also by George Washington’s warning that America ought to have “as little political connection as possible” with distant nations.

The other was Benghazi.

To hear President Obama and challenger Mitt Romney tell it, the United States must project its power and influence everywhere, all the time. We should make sure that other nations — even those that are hostile to Western values — hold fair elections. We should help them establish free-market economies. We should ensure that they protect women’s rights and abide by the rule of law. If they don’t get in line, we’ll impose sanctions. We might start arming folks who want to overthrow their government.

Said Mr. Romney, speaking of the Middle East: “We have to help these nations create civil societies.”
No, we don’t. What Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama described is not a foreign policy but a foreign INTERVENTIONIST policy.

Again and again, Mr. Romney said “I feel the president was right” with this or that decision. He backed the U.S. pullout from Afghanistan by the end of 2014 (a break from his earlier pronouncements). He expressed strong support for Israel, as did Obama. He said a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable, as did Obama.

The one potentially sharp split between the two was the administration’s handling of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. But it was barely touched on. The president said he’ll go after those responsible, and that was about it.

Mr. Romney’s near-silence on the topic was puzzling. The Benghazi affair is an open wound on the Obama administration and raises serious questions about Mr. Obama’s adeptness at managing security issues. Romney’s failure to press him for answers was, in our view, a missed opportunity.

Benghazi may get more attention as Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney sprint toward Election Day. It’s doubtful that other foreign policy differences will be argued, however, because there aren’t many.